|
|
 |
| [Dec 26, 2010, 1:38 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Big Download interviews Intel's Matt Ployhar, who recently took over as the new president of the PC Gaming Alliance, a trade group ostensibly formed to promote PC gaming. They discuss his qualifications for the position and the alliance's plans for the future, which sound flexible at the moment, with Ployhar saying: "nothing is currently set in stone and everything is on the table at this point." He talks of how improving internal and external communication is one of their top priorities, and also seems to admit their organization has not yet exerted the kind of influence many have hoped for: "PC Gaming has sort of thrived more in spite of itself rather than by the actions of any single entity. It seems to be doing well now; but that can ebb and flow." That said, he does express optimism for the PCGA's future: I'm honored, and flattered, to have been chosen to lead the PCGA. I'm very dedicated in trying to get PC Gaming on the footing I've always believed it should have been on. Which is simply to make it the most logical gaming choice for all consumers in any geography. PC Gaming done right means we're out executing what other alternatives are able to deliver. Ultimately it comes down to share of mind and wallet; and to that end I sincerely believe PC Gaming already is the most logical choice. Now all we have to do is fine tune a few things and get the message out there.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 27. |
Re: PCGA Interview |
Dec 27, 2010, 07:15 |
Jerykk |
|
|
They only allow us to post because it makes us more productive in the illusion of freedom much like how farmers plant crops a bit farther from each other to increase productivity. A farmer might provide a cow a service like antibiotics or a bug bath but that doesn't mean the cow isn't considered property.
Last I checked, cows don't get to leave their farms whenever they feel like it. As I mentioned earlier, governments do restrict some freedoms for the sake of maintaining order. This is necessary, otherwise there would be nothing stopping the strong from preying on the weak. Without government, the populace would be naturally divided into tribes as a result of pack mentality, strength in numbers and so on. Some tribes would be peaceful, other tribes would not. Inevitably, the aggressive tribes would either destroy or assimilate the peaceful tribes, growing in size and power. When you come to think of it, governments are really just big tribes. If you live in a country, you have to abide by the rules of that tribe. If you break the rules, you are punished. If governments were abolished, they would inevitably just be reformed as tribes.
I ask you to observe the world around you over the years to come to learn more, how the state interferes and manipulates much of the food market against you as a consumer and instead they create more towards a corporatist system that services the elite.
You can observe all you want but it won't change a thing unless you start a violent revolution and overthrow the government. Of course, that wouldn't really change anything either. The people in power will always try to assert their ideals and principles upon others, much like you are trying to do right now. The question you need to ask is whether or not the benefits of your ideals outweigh the downsides.
So what defines tyranny is the question..
According to the dictionary, this defines tyranny:
1.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2.
the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.
a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.
undue severity or harshness.
6.
a tyrannical act or proceeding.
The first definition is the most applicable to government so let's look at that. Does the U.S. government exercise arbitrary or unrestrained power? No. If it did, the U.S. would just kill any opposition. Iraq? Nuked. Afghanistan? Nuked. North Korea? Nuked. Anyone who criticizes the government or its leaders? Dead (or imprisoned).
There are many parts of the government that exist to serve the people, even at the expense of government interests. The Constitution serves the people. The Supreme Court exists to ensure that the Constitution is enforced. Government officials are elected by the people. Many government policies are voted upon by the people. If you're a U.S. citizen, the government gives you rights that would otherwise not exist if there were no government. It would be much easier for the government to exercise their power if they didn't bother with courts or rights or any such shenanigans. Luckily, the government restrains itself and, as a whole, abides by the laws it creates (notwithstanding the few employees who fail in this regard). Iraq under Saddam was a tyranny. North Korea has always been a tyranny. Italy under Mussolini was a tyranny. Germany under Hitler was a tyranny. The U.S. is not a tyranny.
This comment was edited on Dec 27, 2010, 07:31. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
